excommunication depose his subiects neither can the Pope as spirituall Prince ouer all And Victora plainly saith thus That a Bishop de iure diuino hath power to excommunicate his subiects ex officio Victor de excom nu 1◠and by ordinary and proper power And what the Pope can do throughout all the world a Bishop may also do in his Bishopricke a few things excepted as to create a Bishop Who disagreeth not with the Cardinall in this that a Bishop is a true Pastor in his particular Church as the Pope is in the Catholicke and vniuersall that he may as well excommunicate the subiects committed to his charge as the Pope may all Princes and people that are sheepe of Christs fold by the authoritie giuen to Peter in those word Pasce oues meat By which Christ indeed constituted him Pastor ouer his flocke marry a spirituall Pastor not a temporall giuing him all authoritie necessary for that office which was only spiritual without coniunction of any other By vertue then of this spirituall authoritie the principall part for gouernment in foro exteriori is excommunication being grauissima poenarum then which none is more grieuous no Bishop can depriue any priuate man whatsoeuer within his Diocesse of the least parcell of his lands or goods that being the office of the ciuill power how then can the chiefe Bishop depriue Kings and Princes of their crownes and dignities the nature of this censure being all one in both Excommunication is defined to be separatio à commumone Ecclesiae quoad fructum suffragia generalia Tho. in suppl q. 21. ar 1. in 4. dist 18. q. 2. c. Excommunication is a separation from the communiō of the Church as touching the fruite and generall suffrages The fruite of the Church cannot be vnderstood of the fruite of temporall goods because these are not taken away from excommunicate persons This S. Thomas plainly shewing that it is beyond the nature of this censure to worke any such effect as to take away temporall goods And in the same qu. ar 3. Sed quia excommunicatio est grauissma poenarum c. But becausce excommunication is the greatest of all punishments therefore excommunication ought not to be inflicted no not for a mortall sin vnlesse the offender be obstinate Tunc enim postquam monitus fuerit c. For then after he shall be admonished if he contemptuously disobey he is reputed stubburne and ought to be excommunicated by the Iudge now not hauing any more to do against him And the same Doctor disputing whether heretickes are to be tollerated saith That after the first and second admonition if yet he be found obstinate Tho. 2.2 q. 11 ar 3. the Church not hoping of his conuersion meaning no doubt such a one as hauing professed the Catholicke faith hath made shipwracke thereof and fallen to heresie prouideth for the health of others separating him from the Church by the sentence of excommunication and further leaueth him to secular iudgement to be put to death Whereby you see that in case yea of heresie the Church can proceed no further then to excommunication after she hath declared and condemned him for his crime Can. corripiantur 24. q. 3. To this agreeth Molanus writing of the condemnation of Iohn Husse and Hierome of Prage by the generall Councel of Constance Mola de fide haer ser l. 2. c. 2 l. 3. c. 4. who as he saith hauing excommunicated anathematized and condemned them for heretickes and hauing no more to do with them deliuered them ouer to Imperiall power by which they were burnt So that temporall punishment of heretickes whether it be by confiscation of goods and patrimonie or death belongeth and is proper to the secular power as the spirituall do to Ecclesiasticall persons Which we see manifest by practise of all Christian countries yea and out owne that no man is to be put to death nor lose his goods vpon excommunication but onely by execution of the Princes law And Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe will confesse Bellarm. in Barcl c. 23. that extra casum haeresit out of the case of heresie by vertue of the sentence of excommunication there followeth not depriuation of temporall dominion or of particular goods or kingdomes and princedomes though saith he by and by Kings and Princes may be for iust causes depriued by the Pope of their kingdome or princedome Variously and ambiguously insinuating that there are other iust causes besides heresie but listeth not or rather as may be supposed cannot set downe what they are for as yet neuer were any determinately made knowne more then such as shall be deemed worthy of depriuation ad arbitrium Pontificis But as farre as I can see his Grace must maintaine other causes as well as heresie otherwise how can the deposition of Henrie Frederick Otho and other Princes be defended to haue bene lawfull who were neuer condemned by the Church for heresie And if there be other causes current to depriue Princes of temporals then there is for priuate men surely the Christian princely state must needs be farre worse then the plebeian or then if they were Heathens or Publicans which were absurd when as God the giuer of all power for correction of men is not acceptor personarum but ministreth iustice equally or indifferently to all all both Princes and people being populus eius oues pascuae eius his people and the sheepe of his pasture If there be any as me thinketh I heare one say that he is not yet satisfied as touching this point but desireth to know the finall cause nature and effects of excommunication let him note wel what the most learned and graue Cardinall Tolet of famous memory and others write thereof Est autem excommunicatio Ecclesiastica censura Tolet. Lib. 1. instruc sacerd c. 4. nu 1. qua homo Christianus bonis fidelium communibus priuatur Excommunication is an Ecclesiasticall censure whereby a Christian man is depriued of the common goods of the faithfull Which goods he faith arc three 1. externall conuersation consisting in mutuall talke and societie 2. participation of sacraments 3. prayers and suffrages of the Church And these in his opinion are not so much the effects as the very nature and substance of excommunication The end whereof Lib. 1. c. 11. n. 1 Li. 1 c. 10. n. 14. without controuersie is the good and vtility of man that he may repent and conuert himselfe to good as he saith Cap. Medicinalis de sent excom in 6. Decret 2. par 24. q. 3. cap. 36 when as excommunication is medicinall not mortall instructing not plucking vp by the roote Which agreeth with the Epistle of Pope Vban set downe in the Canon law Liquido apparet aliud esse excommunicationem aliud eradicatiouem c. It euidently appeareth that excommunication is one thing eradication another For he that is excommunicated as the Apostle saith to this end is excommunicated that
whether the principall points thereof as deposing the Kings Maiestie discharging his subiects of their obedience dispensing and absoluing in this Oath and such like be matter of faith which bind euery Christian man stedfastly to beleeue the same vnder paine of damnation or else but matter of opinion And secondly what you ought to doe concerning the Popes Breues whether you may lawfully disobey them or no. These points indeed are the chiefest whereon the rest haue their dependāce which with Gods assistance I shal endeuor so to handle as you shall not need to doubt of the lawfulnes of the Oath nor hazard all your estates for refusing the same yet so as whatsoeuer shall be here in this my treatise written I humbly submit to the censure of the holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church Errare quidem possum homo enim sum haereticus esse nolo Well I may erre for a man I am but hereticke will I neuer be In the dayes of Samuel the Prophet after the people of Israel had bene foure hundred yeares ruled and gouerned by certaine rulers called Iudges vpon occasion of Samuels sonnes misdemeanour in their gouernment 1. Reg. 8. all the elders of Israel came to Samuel in Ramatha and they said vnto him Behold thou art old and thy sonnes walke not in thy wayes appoint vs a King like as all nations haue Whereupon though this word highly displeased Samuel God commanded him to heare them howbeit he should witnesse and foretell them the authoritie or right of a King which he did saying This will be the right of a King that is to gouerne ouer you c. All which things in the text of Scripture expressed by Samuel Gloss ordin in hunc locū are a Kings right as faith the Glosse in time of neede for the good of the weale publike though it were to be wished that many of thē were moderatly vsed Tho. 1. 2. q. 105. at 1. ad 5 especially all those things which seeme to make the people that is subiect to be seruile or slauish and which respect not the common good but rather the will of the man exalted in the kingdome These or such like did Samuel foretell them to withdraw them from asking a king because it was not expedient for them and because that gouernment for the greatnesse or excellencie of power is easily conuerted into tyrannie After this God sent Saul and then reuealed vnto Samuel that he was the king that should gouerne his people-Israel and commanded to annoint him Which he did saying Ecce vnxit te Dominus super haereditatem suam in Principem 1. Reg. 10. liberabis populum suum de manibus inimicorū eius qui in circuitu eius sunt Behold our Lord hath annointed thee to be Prince ouer his inheritance and thou shalt deliuer his people from the hands of their enemies which are round about them Not long after king Saul for disobeying the precept of God giuen him by Samuel was by God depriued of his kingdome as the Scripture saith and not by Samuel as some would haue it 1. Reg. 15. Quia proiecisti sermonem Domini proiecit te Dominus ne sis Rex super Israel Because thou hast reiected the word of our Lord our Lord also hath reiected thee that thou maiest not be king ouer Israel By this example some gather as they thinke a strong argument viz. à fortiori that the Church of God and the Pope Christs vicar in earth may iustly depriue or dispossesse kings of their scepters and dominions vpon cause giuen as for heresie or apostasie c. when as the Synagogue and Samuel had this authoritie who de facto deposed Saul for disobedience onely If this were true then indeede were the argument of some force for it cannot be denied but that the spirituall power of the Church of Christ is much greater then was that of the Synagogue of the Iewes and the Pope hath more ample * ordinarie authoritie then Samuel had yet it followeth not hereof that either the Pope or Church by any power receiued from Christ Iesus can depriue depose or disposses any lawfull Prince or priuate man that is not a vassall feudatarie or subiect vnto him of his goods temporall state crowne or dignitie because neither the Synagogue nor Samuel were euer endued with this power It is not any where to be found in all the old Testament that the Synagogue of the Iewes the figure of Christs Church or high Priest or Bishop for the time being could or de facto euer did depose any lawfull king of Israel or Iuda from their Empire were he neuer so wicked neuer so peruerse or cruell and in his place did substitute an other Whereby then is euident that no good argument can be gathered by this example to proue such power to be in the new law and in the Church or gouernours thereof That Samuel deposed not king Saul by any authoritie in him existing but Almightie God himselfe may easily be proued thus for either he must depose him by temporall authoritie as he was a Iudge which could not be he being depriued thereof when Saul was made king and was no more a gouernour but a subiect or else by some ordinarie power of spirituall iurisdiction ouer him which he had not for that he was nor Bishop nor Priest though a great Prophet but only a Leuite as Genebrard Saint Hierome Geneb in Ps 98. Hierom. lib. 1. in louin Bellar. in Psal 98. Pintus in Ezech c. 45. p. 549. Cardinall Bellarmine Hector Pintus and others affirme to whom such iurisdiction did no way appertaine Therefore Samuel deposed him not but onely as an extraordinarie Embassador executed the will and iudgement of God in his deposition who had giuen him a speciall warrant or commandement as touching the same which will appeare manifestly to him that readeth the Scripture Sine me indicabo tibi quae locutus est Dominus ad me nocte 1. Reg. 15. Suffer me said Samuel to the king when he came to him and I will declare vnto you what our Lord hath spoken to me in the night And then forthwith deliuered his message that which God had reuealed vnto him to wit that our Lord had so reiected him and his progenie as albeit he were in person to enioy the kingdome to his liues end as he did fortie yeares that none of his stocke or seed should successiuely reigne after him and be of that line of whom Christ the Messias was to be incarnate If then neither the Synagogue nor Samuel did or could by any ordinarie power depose Saul elected by God I do not see how by this example any good argument can be drawne in consequence for the Churches or the Popes ordinarie power of deposing Princes Had such authoritie bin graunted to the Synagogue or high Priests in the old law why I pray you had it not bene practised on the persons of Achaz Manasses Amon Ioachaz and
of the Church against her persecutors was such as there could be no hope to preuaile As if true faith and religion which is now beside the Indies restrained into a corner of Europe onely did not replenish before that time Europe Africke and Asia No there wanted not necessitie to practise such authoritie on Constantius Iulian Valens Valentinian and other like professed aduersaries of Christ and his Church nor oportunitie Christians being so many so potent replete with maruellous zeale and constant courage in defence of Gods truth to the losse of lands and life if they had knowne such power of deposing to haue bene in the Church and chiefe Pastors thereof and the Pastors knew well what their dutie was in that behalfe But where I pray you lay this power hidden for the space of 700 hundred yeares after Christ by the Cardinals confession suppose I should grant so much vnto him of disposing of temporals in ordine ad finem spiritualem no Scripture no tradition no ancient Father or generall Councell in all that time teaching it If he say there was where or how doth it appeare His Grace hath not yet neither in Tortus nor against our Kings Apologie nor in his last against Barclai produced any such cleare testimonie as may conuince Our Sauiour Christ himselfe refused to intermeddle in deuiding a temporall inheritance betweene two saying Quis me constituit iudicē aut diuisorē super vos Luc. 12. Who hath constituted me a iudge or a diuider ouer you disdaining as it were as Iansenius noteth that he should be troubled or drawne frō the celestiall businesse Iansen conc for which only he was sent by his Father to haue care of carnall and base things thereby also to teach such as are his that they ought not to intangle themselues in profane businesse that gouerne the Apostolicke office According to this is that of S. Paul Nemo militans Deo 2. Tim. 2. implicat se negotijs secularibus No man that is a souldier to God entangleth himselfe with secular businesse What more intangling what more secular then to intermeddle in deuiding and disposing of temporals Non est discipulus super magistrum The disciple is not aboue his maister Therefore his Vicar ought not in such wise to be iudge ouer Kings in things terrene when they are taught by our Sauiours example not to be hindered from celestiall affaires which onely do concerne them whose power is ouer sinnes of men not ouer their possessions In criminibus non in possessionibus potestas vestra Bern. lib. 1. de consid cap. 2. Againe S. Peter prince of the Apostles hauing receiued of Christ all power necessary for the gouernement of his Church which was to be deriued to his successors had not that power which is temporall but onely spirituall for in the Apostles times the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill were distinct and separate as the Cardinall confesseth lib. 5. de sum Pont. cap. 6. Which could not be but were conioyned if they had any such power yea indirectly If then Peter had no temporall power directly or indirectly giuen him by Christs institution who doubtlesse foresaw that it was necessary to be in him and his successours for the correction and direction of soules to their spirituall end it were absurd to say that succeeding Popes as they are Peters successors should haue more ample power then he or any of the Apostles had De Ro. Pont. li. 5. c 4. And the Cardinals argument which he maketh against the Canonists helpeth for confirmation of this matter in hand to wit Christ saith he as he was man while he liued on earth receiued not nor would haue any temporall dominion but the Pope is Christs Vicar and representeth Christ vnto vs such as he was while he liued here among men Therefore the Pope as Christs Vicar and so as Pope hath not any temporall dominion How then cometh it that Popes in these latter ages practise on exorbitant Princes deposition and disposing of temporals when they shall iudge it necessarie or expedient to a spirituall end hauing no commission no warrant of our Sauiour so to do Is it by temporall onely or spirituall onely or by both By their temporall power which reacheth no further thē the patrimony of the Church it is euident they cannot for so they are but equals not superiours to absolute Princes and Par in parem non habet imperium No neither haue they which is more being no Monarchs authority from Christ to put any man to death to banish or to depriue any priuate man of his goods Cost in Osiand propos 7. as Costeru◠a learned Iesuite and other good Authors do hold Nemo Pontifex sanguinis leges tulit hoc munu◠Imperatorum est qui varia◠poenas de haereticis scripserunt quos bonorum spoliatione infamia exilio morte imòigne puniri iusserunt c. No Pope hath made lawes of life and death this is the office of Emperours who haue written downe diuerse puniments for heretickes whom they haue cōmanded to be punished with losse of goods infamie exile death yea with fire c. He goeth on The Pope at Rome putteth no man to death he hath his secular Iudges who minister iustice by the lawes of Caesar To this agreeth Iacobus Almain De ratione potestatis laicae est poenā ciuilem posse infligere Almain de dom nat ciuili in vlt. edit Gersonis vt sunt mors exilium bonorum priuatio c. It belongeth to the secular power to inflict a ciuill punishment as are death banishment depriuing of temporall goods But the Ecclesiasticall power cannot by the institution of God inflict any such paine no not imprison any as many Doctors hold but it reacheth onely to spirituall punishment that is to excommunication and the other punishments which he vseth ex iure purè positiuo sunt are onely by a positiue law Who in another place hath thus Alm. de pot Eccles laic c. 13. q. 1. c. 9. Christus secundum humanitatem c. Christ according to his humanity had greater power then the Pope hath as to institute the Euangelicall law neither had he his power limited to sacraments for he could pardō without application of sacraments his Vicar hath not such but onely that which is declared in his Vicarship for he gaue him power to remit sinnes to preach to giue indulgences c but it is no where found that he gaue him power to institute and depose Kings therefore by any power giuen him from Christ note well he hath not soueraigne power of iurisdiction in temporals This he With these may be ranked Ioannes Maior Maior in 4. dist 24. q. 3. Maximus Pontifex no◠habet dominium temporale super Reges c. The chiefe Bishop hath not temporall dominion ouer Kings For the contrary being granted saith he it followeth that Kings are his vassals and that he may expell them de facto out
that he acknowledged himselfe vnable to effect it yet at last wonne by their importunitie they being his friends promised to do the best he could hoping they would when they saw it with their memories helpe to supply his defects The same afternoone he began to set downe in writing the Popes speech in his owne phrase and stile as neare as he could remember and when he had done he commanded me being one of his Chaplains and two other of his gentlemen to write out copies thereof which he after presented to the Cardinals his friends who had importuned him to that labour Afterwards they gaue him thankes saying that it was the very Oration which Sixtus had vttered in Consistory and as I was enformed the Pope himselfe liking his doing therein said it was his speech indeed By this meanes the Oration was set forth and published among diuers particular friends and so I reserued to my self a copie which I sent as I haue said soon after to my beloued friend M. William Reynolds And as far as my memory serueth me this here printed according to the Parisian copie doth well agree with the originals first written in Rome for I do yet perfectly remember the beginning out of Abacucke to be the same likewise the facts of Eleazar and of Iudith with the circumstances to haue bene in that Oration as also the circumstances of the Friars going to certaine aduersaries of the league for letters of credence to the King Brisac then prisoner in the Bastile his going forth of the gate so dangerously and his passage through the heretickes campe to his Maiestie with other like circumstances there specified But whether the Pope in this his Oration approueth or alloweth of the Friars fact killing his King for that he had caused the Cardinall of Guise Archbishop of Rhemes to be put to death was esteemed of some a tyrant and fauourer of heretickes or onely admired the prouidence of almightie God as Cardinall Bellarmine in Tortus affirmeth I do not presume to define but leaue it to the consideration of each prudent reader What if the Pope vpon wrongs done to himselfe as a temporall Prince in Italy should authorize some of his vassals or feudatary Princes to wage warre against our King and inuade his dominions is not this lawfull for him by the law of nations How then doth the Oath say that the Pope neither of himselfe nor by any authoritie of the Church or sea of Rome or by any other meanes with any other hath any power or authoritie to depose the King or to dispose any of his Maiesties kingdomes or dominions or to authorize any forrein Prince to inuade or annoy him or his countries That his Holinesse as he is a temporall Prince in Italy may vpon iust cause reuenge iniuries offered by attempting the various euents of warre and thereby seeke to annoy his Maiestie or his countries no man I thinke will doubt but can any man hereby inferre that so doing he hath more authoritie to depose our King or dispose any of his Maiesties kingdomes or inuade his dominions then hath the Emperour French King King of Spaine or any other secular Prince And in case he should attempt in hostile manner not as he is a spirituall Pastor but a secular Prince by himselfe or by the helpe of any forreine Prince to inuade or annoy his Maiestie or his countries euery good subiect may lawfully and in dutie is bound to take armes in defence of his King and countrey against him no lesse then he ought to do against any other secular Potentate whatsoeuer But our Oath speaketh not of the secular power of the Bishop of Rome which he hath onely by the bountie and liberalitie of temporall Princes or by prescription in the temporall dominions he possesseth but of any authoritie whatsoeuer receiued from Christ or his Apostles as he is Christs Vicar and Peters successor as the words of the Oath seeme to import viz. That the Pope neither of himselfe that is as he is Pope nor by any authoritie of the Church or sea of Rome For thus his authoritie is onely and meerly spirituall which was neuer ordained by God to produce such effects as waging of warre inuasion of kingdomes deposing and dethroning of Princes as hath bene said before but onely to practise spirituall censures to wit excommunication suspension interdiction and such like which maketh nothing for such as refuse the taking of the Oath Another obiection some vse to make for their iustification against the Oath viz That he who sweareth must do his best endeuour to disclose and make knowne vnto his Maiestie his heires and successours all treasons and traiterous conspiracies which he shall know or heare of to be against him or any of them But to be a Priest to reconcile or to be reconciled to the Church of Rome is treason by the statutes of this kingdome Anno 23.27 Elizab. Therefore he is bound by this Oath to reueale Priests and all reconciled persons which no man can do without committing a most grieuous and hainous crime Are not these men narrowly driuē to their shifts trow ye when after labouring their wits to defend their refusall of the Oath they can find no better arguments The words of the Oath import that such as take it must make knowne all treasons and traiterous conspiracies which he shall know to be against him How I pray you can this be vnderstood of any who is not disposed to cauill to be meant of Priesthood and confession of sins or reconcilement to the fauour of God or vnitie of his Church and not rather of such like treasons and traitorous conspiracies as were inuented and should haue bene practised by those late wicked sulphurean traitors These indeed and others of like nature and qualitie are directly against his Maiestie his hieres and successours for repressing and detecting such this Oath was inuented and the Act framed not for disclosing Priests or reconciled persons who acccording to the intentiō of the Act are no such traitors as long as they enter not into any treasonable practise against his Maiestie and the State whereof God forbid all Priests should be guiltie And I trust both his Maiestie most learned and wise together with his graue and prudent Councell in their wisedomes know that besides some few who haue already giuen good proofe of their loialtie and dutifull affection though to their great temporall detriment for the same there are many moe who beare likewise a true English heart to their King and countrey and would be ready to make also proofe thereof if occasion were offered Wherefore supposing it were true that by the letter of the law all Priests Jesuites c. mentioned in the statute are to be reputed traitors and all reconciling treason yet I dare auouch it was neuer his Maiesties nor the lawmakers intent to bind any called to the Oath to reueale such kind of traitours or treasons which is made
other kings of Iuda who were much more wicked then Saul was and on impious Ieroboam that led with him all Israel to Idolatrie Achab Ochozias Ioachaz and the rest of the kings of Israel who exceeded in all kind of impietie in whose dayes florished Ahias Semeias Elias Eliseus Isaias Ieremy and other great Prophets indued with maruellous courage zeale authoritie and sanctitie of life yet none went about to depose or take the crowne from the head of any Prince lawfully inuested though he were neuer so wicked knowing right well that whatsoeuer they wrought with Princes about the ouerthrow of some or setting vp of others or foretold what was to happen vnto them it was not by any ordinarie power that they had but extraordinary by speciall commandement and reuelation from Almightie God Now by this fact of Samuel it may well be deduced that whensoeuer the Pope gouernour of Gods house shall haue speciall reuelation from aboue as Samuel had that such a particular king is to be deposed and another placed in his roome thē it cannot be denied but he may do as Samuel did that is as I haue said he may and ought to declare the will of God reuealed vnto him without any concurrence to the execution thereof onely denouncing Gods sentence of deiection or deposition of such a Prince when he knoweth certainly that so is the will and pleasure of our Lord whose will none may contradict Voluntati eius quis resistit Who is able to resist his will nor is any to expostulate why he doth so And if such a thing should euer happen then were the argument good and sound otherwise weake and of no force If any man after this obiect vnto me that Athalia was deposed and slaine by the commandement of Ioiada the high Priest when she had reigned seuen yeares therefore it seemeth he had authoritie frō God so to do and if he had why should not the Pope haue the like ouer exorbitant Princes For solution hereof I referre him to the place of holy Scripture where he may see with halfe an eye 4. Reg. 11. that Athalia was no lawfull Queene but an vsurping tyrant who had murthered all the kingly race and so intruded her selfe most vniustly Whereupon Ioiada high Priest brought forth and presented to the people Ioas sonne to Ochozias who was strangely preserued by meanes of his Aunt Iosaba when he was but an infant from that tyrannous slaughter made by his Grandmother Athalia and together with their full consents performing the dutie of a good subiect restored the true heire to the right of his kingdome which could hardly haue bene effected without the high Priests assistance who was the chiefest in matters of religion and therefore much honoured and respected of the people So this fact of Ioiada proueth nothing but that it is lawfull for a state or commonwealth to depose an vsurper and restore the true heire to his right and not that he had any authoritie to depose any lawfull Prince were he otherwise neuer so exorbitant in life manners and beleefe or cruell in his gouernment Well Sir though this be granted that neither the Synagogue of the Iewes nor Samuel the Prophet nor Ioiada the high Priest had authoritie to depose Princes and dispose of their temporals yet can we not be perswaded but that the Church of Christ and his Vicar in earth the Pope whose power is not limited to one sort of people as it was in the old law but is extended ouer all Christians as well Princes as people throughout the world may iustly depose kings and dispose of their kingdomes when he shall iudge it expedient to the glory of God and vtilitie of the Church And the rather because this hath bene practised by diuerse precedent Popes vpon certaine Princes in these latter ages for crimes adiudged by them to deserue the same which we suppose they would neuer haue enterprised had they not sufficient warrant out of holy Scriptures or examples of the Apostles and ancient Bishops of Gods Church or else authoritie from the holy Ghost by a definitiue sentence in some generall Councell We pray you touch this point so as you may resolue vs throughly whether they haue all or some of these proofes for that authoritie if they haue not then is it cleare in our opinions not to be de fide and if it be not a point of faith binding all to beleeue that his Holines hath such authoritie we see no reason why vpon his bare commandement we should so deepely plunge our selues into a sea of calamities as of necessitie we must by losing all lands and goods whatsoeuer we haue to the vtter vndoing of our selues wiues and children and hazarding our liues by perpetuall imprisonment for refusing to performe our dutie to our Soueraigne by taking the Oath of allegiance wherein we sweare fealtie and ciuill obedience which is due by the law of God and nature Reddite quae sunt Caesaris Caesari quae Dei Deo Render saith our Sauiour to Caesar that which is Caesars and to God that which is Gods Besides if we refuse it we shall not take away but greatly increase the heauie imputation of treason and treacherie which our aduersaries haue this long time layd on Catholickes and confirme them in this their wrong opinion that to be a true Catholicke of the Romane Church and a good subiect cannot stand and agree together Beloued brethren lest any man be scandalized at this my writing iudging it not to sauour of a true Catholick heart nor of an obedient child of the Apostolicke Church but rather to proceed from an euill affected minde fraught with passion accept for a premunition and I wish I may not be mistaken * that sincerely and without spleene or passion I intend to set downe nothing but what I shall thinke in my opinion to be truth and that I honour and reuerence with heart and mind the holy Catholicke Church of Rome acknowledging and stedfastly beleeuing with the holy Fathers that to be the mother of Churches the Sea of Peter the rocke against which hell gates shall not preuaile the house of God out of which who eateth the Lambe is profane and out of which no saluation is to be hoped for as the great D. S. Augustine and others do teach vs In serm super gestis Emer Donat. and elsewhere Hieron ep ad Dam. Amb. 1. Tim. 3. Athan. ep ad Felicem and that the Pope is the chiefe Bishop and Pastor thereof Christs Vicar in earth and successor to S. Peter prince of the Apostles who by his spirituall power giuen by Christ our Lord hath iurisdiction ouer all Christian Princes and monarchs as well as poore men so farre as is requisite to the conuersion and feeding of soules But I cannot easily be induced to beleeue that this power giuen him by Christ in S. Peter extendeth it selfe to the depriuation or deposition of secular Princes of their dominions or to the deposing
world We know well that as he is the Sonne of God he is the King of glory King of kings Lord of heauen and earth and of all things Psal 23. Domini enim est terra plenitudo eius and reigneth with the Father and the holy Ghost for euer but what is this to a temporall kingdome what is this to the imperiall dignitie of secular maiestie Therefore I meane not to stand to confute this opinion of Canonists which hath bene most learnedly confuted by Cardinall Bellarmine Lib. 5. de sum Pont. c. 2. 3 but to let it passe as most absurd that cannot be proued by any sound reason nor ancient authorities either of Scriptures Fathers or Councels but maintained by captious fallacies vnapt similitudes and corrupt interpretations An other opinion there is of Diuines who dislike and with most strong reasons do confute the Canonists positiōs but yet so as they vphold and labour to maintain the Popes temporall power though in other sort then the former that is De Ro. Pont. lib. 5. c. 6. indirectly or casually and by consequence This then they write and namely Cardinall Bellarmine Asserimus Pontificem vt Pontificem et si non habeat vllam merè temporalem potestatem tamen habere in ordine ad bonum spirituale summam potestatem disponendi de temporalibus rebus omnium Christianorum We affirme that the Pope as Pope although he hath not any meerly temporal power yet in order to the spiritual good he hath a supereminent power to dispose of the tēpotall goods of all Christians And againe in the same chapter Quantum ad personas non potest Papa vt Papa ordinariè temporales Principes deponere etiam iusta decausa eo modo quo deponit Episcopos id est tanquam ordinarius iudex c. As touching the persons the Pope as Pope cannot ordinarily depose temporall Princes yea for a iust cause after that sort as he deposeth Bishops that is as an ordinary iudge yet he may change kingdomes and take from one and giue to an other as the chiefe spirituall Prince if that be necessarie to the health or sauing of soules And in the same booke the first chapter where he putteth downe the Catholicke opinion as he saith he altereth it somewhat in this manner Pontificem vt Pontificem c. That the Pope as Pope Lib. 5. cap. 1. hath not directly and immediatly any temporall power but only spirituall yet by reason of the spirituall he hath at least indirectly a certaine power that chiefe or highest in tēporals You haue here set downe by Cardinall Bellarmine the opinion of Diuines that the Pope as Pope or chiefe Bishop as chiefe Bishop hath not directly and immediatly any temporall power to depose Christian Princes but that indirectly I wot not how he may depose them and dispose of their temporals and so in effect and after a sort agreeeth with the Canonists that indeed such power is rightly in him only he differeth about the manner with a restraint from infidels to Christian Princes But I trust as he in improuing the Canonists assertiō of direct power ouer al the world driueth them to Scriptures or tradition of the Apostles so likewise we may require that he proue his indirect power by one of these two wayes If he cannot as most certainely he cannot then why should men giue more credite to him then to the other they being as Catholike and haply no lesse learned then he Why should his opinion be thought more true then the former To disproue the Canonists thus he writeth Ex Scriptur is nihil habemus Bellar de Ro. Pont l. 5. c. 3. nisi datas Pontifici claues regni coelorum declauibus regni terrarium nulla mention fit Traditionem Apostolicam nullam aduersary proferunt Out of Scriptures we haue nothing but that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen to the Pope of the keyes of the kingdome of the earth no mention is made at all Apostolical tradition our aduersaries produce none Hereby it seemeth the Cardinall goeth about to proue against his aduersaries that because the keyes of the kingdome of the earth are no where mentioned in the Scripture to be giuen to Peter and his sucsessors therefore the Pope hath not any direct authoritie to depose the Princes of the world nor dispose of their temporals insinuating that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen promised and granted to Peter or to the Church in the person of Peter can worke no such effect nor were granted to depriue Christian Princes or others of their scepters and regall dignities but onely by censures and spirituall authority to exclude vnworthy sinners from eternall felicitie and admit such as are truly penitent to the kingdome of heauen If this argument be good against the Canonists then why is it not also good against Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe when as he can no more produce Apostolicall tradition to confirme his indirect authoritie then the other their direct And of the keyes of the kingdome of the earth required for deposing Princes and disposing of temporals no mention is made in all the Scriptures no not for his indirect or casuall authoritie Consider besides I pray you for it is worth the noting how obscurely and ambiguously he writeth of the Popes power to depose thereby haply intending to seeke some starting hole of equiuocation if occasion serue and meane while leaue his reader doubtfull and still to seeke of his meaning which in my simple Judgement is such as the iudicious wit can hardly conceiue nor tell what he would say As for example that the chiefe Bishop as chiefe Bishop hath not any power meerly temporall c. as is noted before lib. 5. cap. 6. and in the same chapter The Pope as Pope cannot ordinarily note depose c. no not for a iust cause mary as he is the chiefe spirituall Prince he may depose and dispose c. Helpe me good Reader to vnderstand this riddle how these two differ in some essentiall point Pope and chiefe spirituall Prince I must confesse that I vnderstand not how he is the chiefe spirituall Prince but as he is Pope that is the Father of Fathers or chiefe Pastor of soules in the Church of God It is wel knowne that this title Pope or Papa in Latin hath bene attributed to many ancient Patriarchs and Bishops as well as to the Bishop of Rome though principally to him and now is appropriated to him alone and for nought else but for being Bishops and Ecclesiasticall Princes of the Church and for that cause only not for being a temporal Prince Peters successor hath his denomination Which in effect D. Kellison affirmeth saying D. Kellisons Reply to M. Sutel ca. 1. f. 9. Bern. lib. 2. de consid I grant with S. Bernard that the Pope as Pope hath no temporall iurisdiction his power as he is Pope being onely spirituall If then it be so that the Pope as Pope
receiued regall authoritie frustra est enim potentia quae nunquam redigitur in actum But supposing with the Cardinall there were not then any reclamation nor any muttering against it yet may such a constitution being neuer receiued Panormitan 10. Andr. or vpon disuse of so long time be iustly said to be abrogated as many Canons and Decrees of this and other Councels haue bene And namely that in this Councell which forbiddeth new religions to arise Can. 13. since which time notwithstanding Conc. Trid. Sess 25. c. 16. haue risen the Minims of S. Francis de Paula the religiō of the Iesuites and others That Metropolitans should celebrate prouinciall Councels euery yeare was appointed ca. 6. which is not obserued Can. 3. And in the Councell of Lateran vnder Leo 10. was decreed that Monasteries after the deceasse of the Abbots should not be giuen away to any in commenda or cōmended to any who were not religious but how this likewise is obserued Constantino Conc. can 50 59. the Monkes and religious of Italie France and other countries can testifie In the sixth generall Councell clergie men were forbidden to play at dice and it was ordered that Baptisme should be administred onely in Churches which are not kept Many mo instances out of other Councels might be to this purpose produced but to auoide tediousnesse these few may suffise Now for a further answer I wish you to note that this Councell indeed as by the words in the chapter is cleare did first excommunicate all heresie that lifted vp it selfe against that faith which the Fathers had set down in the two precedent chapters and ordained that such as were therefore condemned as also all other heretickes should be left vnto the secular powers to be condignly punished Secondly this holy Synode decreed that such as were onely suspected of heresie should cleare themselues of that note within a yeare after admonition otherwise they were to be excommunicated and auoyded till they had made condigne satiffaction Which was but the right practise and true proceeding of the Church to inflict spirituall censures that the soules of the offendors might be saued in the day of our Lord leauing them to the secular Magistrates to be further punished temporally Thirdly it was set downe in this Synode as meete and conuenient that secular powers should be admonished and if need were compelled to take a publike oath for defence of faith and to do their best endeuours to roote out of their territories all such heretikes as should be denounced by the Church none to be assumed into office which should not by oath confirme this chapter By secular powers and such as shall be assumed into potestacie or office either spirituall or temporal was not nor could be meant Emperor or King but rather Presidents or Gouerners of Prouinces subiect vnto Kings and absolute Princes who being Catholickes may by their excelling power assisting the Church compell them to confirme this chapter by taking such an Oath but themselues cannot be compelled by any hauing no superior on earth in temporals to force them thereunto Neither may it be said properly that a King coming to his crowne by lawfull succession and inheritance or election is assumed into office by any his subiects or others for then it would follow that he were not supremus Dominus a Soueraigne but in some sort inferiour to those that do assume him because he that is assumed or taken into office receiueth authoritie from him that assumeth As the Pope creating a Cardinall and saying Assumimus te insanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem We assume thee to be a Cardinall of the holy Romane Church giueth him by his supreme authoritie that spirituall office and dignitie of assisting him in the gouernment of the Church and his temporall state and to haue vocem actiuam passiuam in the election of the Pope c. But his Holinesse though elected by the Cardinals cannot properly be said to be assumed by them to the Popedome because he receiueth no power or authoritie from them but immediatly from God Finally to the latter part Si vero dominus temporalis on which Cardinall Bellarmine fortifieth his assertion of the Popes authoritie to depose Princes saying It is the voice of the Church it may be answered that the Church here defined it not as he well knoweth if she had no doubt but his Grace would haue spoken it plainly to put all out of doubt By temporall Lords in this place ought not to be vnderstood Kings but rather such as are explicated in the Emperours constitution to wit Potestates Consuls Rectors is hereafter followeth pag. 34. or such feudatarie Princes as haue principall Lords ouer them like to certaine in Italy where this Councell was held which is manifest by this Canon that reserueth the right of the principall Lord Saluo iure Domini principalis But I know some will say that Kings and absolute Princes are to be also included for that the words in the latter end seem to import so much The same law being kept about those who haue not principall Lords which ought to be vnderstood of absolute Princes Lord being a generall word signifying sometime Kings May it not be admired that out of this obscuritie of the law men will enforce Kings to be vnderstood and to be subiect to temporall punishments who acknowledge no superiour on earth to punish them in temporals especially when as no mention is made of them at all in the law In penals as I haue said before pag. 51. a restriction is to be vsed not an ampliation and Kings are no lesse to be named or specified by the orderly proceeding of the Church then Cardinals Conc. Trid. sess 24. de reform cap. 1. who are alwayes named in poenis or else not included though the Pope command sub poena excommunicationis all Patriarchs Archbishops or Bishops of what dignitie soeuer If yet any will enforce that By those who haue not principall Lords Kings are or may be vnderstood it helpeth them nothing at all for that such a law first neuer receiued and againe per desuetudinem being neuer by the Church put in practise is abrogated and of no validitie Neither was it defined in this Councell as all men of meane iudgement may see that the Pope hath authoritie to absolue subiects from their loyaltie or naturall obedience due to their Princes but onely signified that he might denounce the vassals of certaine temporall Lords absolued as it were by vertue of some former law to wit that of Gregorie 7 Nos sanctorum 15. q. 6. ca Nos sanctorū or some other from their fealtie who being admonished and excommunicated by the Metropolitane shall contemne to make satisfaction within a yeare which is not to absolue them by any authoritie giuen by this Councell and so it maketh nothing against the Oath of allegiance That the Pope cannot absolue me from this Oath Then lastly it followeth
extraordinarily casually or by consequence was neuer in such sort decreed in the Councell of Lateran or any other Councell to this day nor euer defined by any Pope ex cathedra as some take it in Consistorie tanquam res fidei formaliter as a matter of faith formally If yet further you desire to know what Authors write that the Popes authoritie in things temporall as deposing Princes and disposing kingdomes you take to be was neuer defined you may reade Cardinall Allen against the English Iustice c. 4. f. 326. who saith Alanus that it is a meere matter of Diuinitie disputable in schoole and no certaintie as yet defined by the Church touching the Popes authoritie in things temporall The same affirme Couarruuias Couarruuias Nauarrus Bensfildius p. 2. pag. 504. Nauarrus as is there noted by Couar in cap. Nouit de iudicio notab Bensfildius de iure damno dato c. 7. and others Here it may be you will obiect vnto me and say that Paulus 5. in prohibiting by his Breues the Oath of allegiance seemeth there to define ex cathedra the Popes authoritie in temporals as some of our Pastors since this controuersie teach vs I pray you let me know your opinion whether they be definitiue sentences or no. Beloued brethren assure your selues they deceiue you that so ignorantly instruct you and while they leade you into an errour they hazard your ouerthrow Those Breues are no definitions but rather admonitions or aduertisements as the first dated 10. Kalendas Octobris 1606. which hath Propterea admonemus vos vt ab hoc at que similibus iuramentis praestandis omnino caueatis c. Therefore we admonish you to beware of taking this and the like Oaths affirming it withall to be vnlawfull Or else precepts though not obligatorie ad mortale peccatum as the second seemed to be dated 10. Kalend. Septembris 1607. prohibiting the taking thereof All which make not a definition ex cathedra and it may wel be presumed that his Holinesse neuer had any such intention to set forth such a decree To know when a decree is de fide you may learne by that I told you a little before out of Cardinall Bellarmine whose rule is well to be considered If these Breues were definitions de fide ex cathedra as some most fondly and ignorantly sticke not to auouch some of those clauses and interminations mentioned by Cardinal Bellarmine had bene inserted they must haue bene generall and ought to bind all Christian people as well as English Catholickes for what is faith in one countrey ought to be such through the world and to be agreed vpon among learned men without controuersie But these being directed to one particular nation and for this one particular cause of the Oath of allegiance can be no decree ex cathedra but rather priuate exhortatory letters no precepts as a late writer affirmeth them to be Andraeas Eudaemon societatis Ies in praefat ad Tortur Torti Priuatis literis Catholicos monuit Pontifex saith Eudaemon iuramentum id suscipi per diuinam legem non licere proinde quiduis potius paterentur The Pope admonished Catholickes in his priuate letters saith Eudaemon a Iesuite that it was not lawful by the law of God to take that Oath therefore they should rather suffer any thing Which may be of little force and not bind specially if they were procured by sinister meanes as by surreption wrong information and so forth as with great reason it may be presumed these were by a person more turbulent then was fitting for one of his function and vocation whose merit haply might haue bene greater by deuout saying one paire of beades then was by his labours and trauailes with his Holinesse to kindle quenched coales as most probably he did in playing the soliciter and procuring those Breues whereby he hath brought all in brandlement set no small contention and diuision among brethren and friends and raised a tempestuous sea of calamities and troubles where a happie calme of peace and quietnesse was not vnlike to be for which God pardon his soule Moreouer some good Authors not only doubt whether the Pope alone may determine or define matters of faith but plainely seeme to say such a determination doth not bind and so he cannot without a generall Council Determinatio solius Papae saith Gerson in his quae sunt fidei Io. Gerson tract de ex aminatione doctrinarum consid 2. non obligat vt praecise est talis ad credendum The determination of the Pope alone in matters of faith as it is precisely such bindeth not to beleeue And Petrus de Alliaco sometime Cardinall of Cambray in his treatise of the reformation of the Church of Rome offered to the Councell of Constance begun an 1414. writeth in this sort as appeareth in M. Blackwels large examination Petrus de Alliaco In hoc non debet Papa aut eius Curia c. Herein as touching the reformation of the bodie of the whole Church of Rome the Pope or his Consistorie ought not to reiect the deliberation of a generall Councell because as the Glosse 19. dist super cap. Anastasius 19. dist super cap. Anastas saith The Pope is bound to require a Councell of Bishops when any point of faith is to be handled which I do not vnderstand of the articles of faith but of difficult matters that touch the vniuersall state of the faithfull Church which Archidiaconus noteth 15. dist c Sicur where approuing the said Glosse he addeth That it were too dangerous a matter to commit our faith to the arbitrement of one man and that therefore the Pope in new and hard cases was accustomed to haue recourse to the deliberation of a Councell Now let your learned instructors peruse and consider well the foresaid Authors Catholicke and the Glosse with the approbation thereof also Catholicke and then I perswade my selfe they wil with more aduisement giue you better instructions and confesse that those Breues are farre from definitiue sentences if not I wish for your good you may light on better and better experienced lest the blind leading the blind both fall into the pit Si enim coecus coecum ducit ambo in foueam cadent Well grant they are no definitions yet it cannot be denied but that therein his Holinesse hath declared many things to be contained in the Oath against faith and the health of soules and thereupon prohibited all Catholickes to take the same whose commandement if any other is to be obeyed by S. Pauls doctrine Obedite Praepositis vestris subiacete eis Heb. 13. ipsi enim peruigilant quasi rationem pro animabus vestris reddâ—â—uri Obey your Prelates and be subiect vnto them for they watch as to render account for your soules How can this be answered or how can they free themselues from mortall sinne that by taking the Oath seeme to contemne soueraigne authoritie Very well If indeede there
commanded without reasonable cause we ought not to obey for it were more then is due And the same Cardinall in another place faith thus Li. de 7. pec mort c 15. Nullus obligatur obedire suo superiori in actibus interioribus puris puta intellectus voluntatis No man is bound to obey his superior in pure interior acts to wit of the vnderstanding and will Who explicateth himselfe If a superior say vnto his inferior Loue thine enemie See S. Tho. More epist ad filiam or this man in particular or else beleeue this or that opinion the inferior is not bound to beleeue it nor to obey because saith he the soule is subiect only to God And for proofe alledgeth Saint Thomas whose words are In his quae pertinent ad interiorem motum voluntatis 2.2 q. 104 art 5. homo non tenetur homini obedire sed solum Deo In such things as appertaine to the inward motion of the will a man is not bound to obey another man but onely God And this he affirmeth to be the common doctrine Out of these cases you may gather and secure your conscience that a superiour yea Christs Vicar the Popes Holinesse may be disobeyed without scruple of sinne modo absit contemptus notwithstanding his commandement prohibiting the Oath of allegiance because no man can force any to beleeue that which is matter onely of opinion not of faith formally vnlesse his vnderstanding be first conuinced that it is an infallible truth which is commanded And this of the Oath being an inward act of the vnderstanding is not subiect in that case to the commandement of any man according to the doctrine of the Authors aforesaid And furthermore by obeying his Holinesses Breues and disobeying his Highnesse law in a matter as yet vndetermined great damage to many is more then likely to ensue and infinite scandals to the losse of soules to arise in the Church which euerie Christian man and good subiect is bound to auoide Qui amat periculum peribit in illo He that loueth danger shall perish in it And Qui causam damus dat damnum dedisse viderur It seemeth he doth the hurt that giueth cause thereof If this satisfie you not lend me a patient and diligent eare and you shall heare more If I shew you by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolicke that his Holines who sitteth now at the sterne Paulus Quintus forbidding all Catholickes to take the Oath of allegiance is not therein to be obeyed I trust you will require no other testimonie but beleeue it to be lawfull and resolue not to hazard your estates for refusing it hereafter Marke then what a learned Cardinal writeth of Innocentius 3. Pope Eleganter dicit Innocentius de sent excom cap. Inquisitioni Franciscus de Zabarel de schismat quòd Papae non est obediendum quando vehementer praesumitur statum Ecclesiae perturbari vel alia mala ventura Et peccaret obediendo cum deberet futura mala praecauere Elegantly saith Innocentius that we are not to obey the Pope when there is vehement presumption that the state of the Church is to be perturbed or other euils are like to ensue And in obeying a man should sin when as he ought to preuent future euils Now tell me I pray you or let our domesticke aduersaries or such as are inwardly perswaded that the Pope cannot by any authoritie deriued from Christ dethrone Kings directly or indirectly howbeit forsooth in policie refuse to take the Oath and discharge their dutie to Caesar for feare of losing friends and commodities nor dispossesse any priuate man of his temporals who is not his subiect of which sort there are many let them I say or any one of them tell me whether by disobeying the Kings highnesse and obeying the Pope in this case of the Oath the Catholick Church in England is not like to be greatly afflicted the memorie of the Gun-powder treason reuiued the Catholickes miseries aggrauated the heate of persecution continued and increased whole families vtterly ruined propagation of faith hindered many soules lost and a thousand euils like to follow with manie scandals to the State and all the Realme by reason of obeying his Holinesse Breues if our most clement Prince with rigour vpon this their indiscreete obedience prosecute his law made for the securitie of him and his posteritie The authoritie aforesaid being of a Pope as that Author affirmeth censureth such a one to offend note well in obeying whom the Pope when as he is bound to beware before hand or preuent such future euils or dangers Then ought not all Catholickes and good subiects doe what in them lieth to preuent the manifold euils that hang ouer their heads by satisfying the Magistrate and refusing to obey such a precept as is the only cause thereof for had no prohibion come from Rome few or none had stood against the Oath especially when as nothing hath bene yet proued by any that haue written of this subiect since the coming of the Breues foure yea fiue yeares agone and more to be contained in the Oath against faith Syluester likewise alledging Panormitane agreeable to the former authoritic Syluest vâ—rb obedietiâ— â—u â— saith that the Pope is not to be obeyed not onely when his precept is iniust or sauoureth sin but also when by such obedience it may be presumed that the state of the Church is like to be greatly disturbed or some other detriment or scandall is to ensue yea although he should command vnder paine of excommunication latae sententiae Nec est saith he ei obediendum si ex obedientia praesumeretur status Ecclesiae perturbandus vehementer vel aliud malum aut scandalum fut urum etiam si praeciperetur sub poena excommunicationis latae sent entiae Vt notat idem in cap. Si quando in cap. Panormit See â—elin in cap. Si quaÌ„do nu 4. in c. Accepimus Cum à Deo de rescrip And goeth forward Ex quo ipse in dicto cap. Si quando infert Quod si c. Whereupon he inferreth that if he the Pope command any thing vnder paine of excommunication ipso facto by execution whereof it is presumed there will be a scandall in the citie of soules or bodies he is not to be obeyed c. It followeth Imo ex cap. Officij de poenis remis habetur c. Yea it is euident that the positiue law interpreteth that restitution which is de iure diuino sometime is not to be made by reason of danger when it may happen to soules or bodies then it may be wel inferred that obedience in like case may be pernicious and so ought not to berendered Tolet. de 7. Pec. mort cap 15. The same writeth Cardinall Tolet citing these authors Nulli superiori praecipienti aliquid c. No superiour commanding any thing whereby scandall or any notable detriment of others do follow is to
in this point towards his liege Lord and secular Prince If it must be granted that Christians by the law of God are strictly bound to obey all iust determinatiue sentences and decrees that proceed from the Sea Apostolicke being the highest spirituall tribunall in Gods Church why must it not likewise be granted that subiects as wel Clercks as laicks are by the same law no lesse boūd in foro cōscientiae to be obedient to the King and his iust lawes the chiefest tribunall in the common wealth This I thinke no Christian wil deny as being most cleare and euident in holy Scriptures taught and practised by all ancient Fathers and holy Saints I confesse you will say that humane iust lawes haue their efficacie of binding all subiects to obey in the Court of conscience Tho. 1.2 q. 96. ar 4. from the eternall law of God of which they are deriued according to that of Salomon Per me Reges regnant Prou. 8 legum conditores iusta decernunt By me saith God Kings do reigne and Law-makers decree iust things But whether this law of the Oath which you aime at be such some make doubt for that Cardinall Bellarmine in Tortus and father Parsons in his Catholicke letter affirme many things to be contained therein against the spirituall primacie of the chiefe Pastor and his authoritie of binding and loosing and concerning the limitation to vse father Parsons owne words of his Holinesse authoritie to wit what he cannot do towards his Maiestie or his successors in anie case whatsoeuer Moreouer besides promise of ciuill and temporall obedience in the Oath other things are interlaced and mixt therewith which do detract from the spirituall authoritie of the highest Pastor at least wise indierectly saith he Therfore this law is iniust as being preiudiciall to the law of God and holy Church Some I know will be carping at me for affirming father Parsons to be the author of that Catholicke letter who being ashamed as may be thought of the slender and insufficient clearing the important matter of the Oath by foure seuerall and distinct waies according to his promise denie that euer he wrote the same But will they nill they it is so well knowne to be his and was to the Inquisition in Rome if I haue not bene misinformed and by a verie credible person that heard it from a gentleman present in the citie in his life time and at his death that he could not denie it and vpon the acknowledgement thereof whether with sorrow and griefe for some points vnaduisedlie or erroneously written and brought in question in his old age or somewhat else in some other booke of his against Doctor Morton touching the lawfulnesse of the Oath of Supremacie in some case I cannot say soone after fell sicke and died within eight daies But to returne to our matter Then lawes are said to be iust Tho. 1.2 q. 96.24 first when they are made for the common good secondly when they exceede not his power that maketh them and thirdly when they haue their due forme to wit when the burdens or penalties are imposed on the subiects with a certain equalitie of proportion in order to the common good or vtilitie of the weale publicke as S. Thomas noteth Such is this law of the Oath of allegiance made by full authoritie in Parliament for the conseruation of his Maiestie and whole commonwealth in tranquillitie and peace Tho. 22. q. 67.2.4 Innoc. 3. cap. Per venerabilem Extra Qui filij sint legitimi which is both priuate and common good When I say full authoritie I meane in temporals for so the Prince hath and onely in temporals in the common wealth no lesse thē the Pope in spirituals in the patrimonie of the Church Which law was generaly enacted for all English subiects though principally intended as a distinctiue signe to detect not Catholickes from Protestants nor such as denie the Kings spirituall supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall from the Popes spirituall primacy as Cardinall Bellarmine in Tortus affirmeth but turbulent spirited Catholickes and these to represse from milde and dutifully affected subiects of the same religion such as disliking haply in words that most horrible conspiracy of Gunpowder King-slaying would in heart haue applauded the euent from those who in affliction for their conscience with patient perseuerance to the end how long soeuer God permit it to continue for our sinnes will in word and deede loue their enemies beare wrongs without murmuring and sincerely pray for the conuersion of their persecutors if they haue any following the example and doctrine of our blessed Sauiour and his holy Apostles That our dread Soueraigne in setting forth this Oath by Act of Parliament hath not exceeded the limites of his power is manifest in that it was framed onely for this end that his Maiesties subiects should thereby make cleare profession of their resolution Praefat monit Apolog. Reg. to vse his Maiesties owne words faithfully to persist in his Maiesties obediēce according to their naturall allegiance And so farre was his intent by the same Oath to detract from the Primacy or spirituall authority of the Pope of binding or loosing by Ecclesiasticall censures or sacraments as the Cardinall and father Parsons affirme that his Maiestie as it were by a most prudent preuention Praefat. monit to take away all scruples that might arise in Catholicke subiects consciences tooke speciall care that that clause inserted by the lower House into the Oath which detracted from the Popes spirituall authority of excommunicating his Maiestie should be forthwith put out And withall declared that the vertue or force of this Oath was no other then that the Popes excommunication might not minister a iust and lawfull cause vnto his subiects to attempt any thing by open or priuie conspiracies against his Maiestie or state What more I pray you could he haue done for clearing this controuersie and satisfying his subiects If then it be so that nothing is contained in this Oath but what appertaineth to naturall allegiance nor more by his Maiestie required then profession of ciuill and temporall obedience which nature prescribeth to all borne subiects as his Maiestie the interpreter of his owne law hath most sufficiently in his Premonition and Apologie made knowne to all by his pen nor that he intended by interlacing or mingling any thing to detract from the spirituall authoritie of the Pope no not indirectly nor against the law of God as is likewise manifest none can iustly say he hath exceeded his limits or that the law is vniust And wheras the Catholick letter hath That there are some things but specifying none of those some concerning the limitation of his Holinesse authoritie if he meane spirituall it is vntrue to wit what he cannot do towards his Maiestie or his successours in any case whatsoeuer That is a glosse of his owne inuention beside the text a notorious vntruth for there are no such words to be found in the
in temporals wherein they ought by the law and ordinance of God to be no lesse obedient then to their Pastors and Prelates in spirituals It followeth now to know what authoritie it is the Pope pretendeth to haue whether Ecclesiasticall or ciuill to depose lawfull Kings and dispose of their temporals and absolue subiects of their bounden dutie and naturall allegiance Which question who so desireth to see it more at large he may reade D. Barclai de potestate Papae and M. Widdrington de iure Principum where it is most sufficiently and learnedly handled and before in this my treatise pag. 17 I haue briefly touched it whereto I adde in this place a word or two more for your better satisfaction Among such Catholickes as refuse to take the Oath of allegiance are many who thinke indeed the Pope to haue no power to depose Kings or dispose of their kingdoms howbeit either vpon pretended scruple of conscience or other humane respects are against the taking and takers of the Oath as if they were little better then Heathens or Publicans And some so simple and ignorant as beleeue that no Pope euer challenged or attempted such authoritie on any Kings or Emperors and that no Iesuit or other learned man allowed or euer taught such doctrine so odious it seemeth vnto them But the wiser sort and more learned know how it hath bene challenged and practised by Popes on the persons of Henrie Otho Fredericke Emperours Iohn King of Nauarre for neither heresie or apostasie and since on Henrie 8. and Queene Elizabeth as by censures do appeare And that it is the moderne doctrine of many both Canonists and Diuines in these latter ages which at the first teaching thereof being so farre dissonant from the writings and practise of all antiquitie was generally adiudged to be noua haeresis as Sigebert reporteth S. Iohn Chrysostome that great Doctor vpon that place of S. Paul 2. Cor. 1. Non dominamur fidei vestrae We ouerrule not your faith Sigebertus in Chro. ad an 1088. Chrysost lib. 2 de dig sacerd c. 3. attributeth such power as forcibly restraines offenders from their wickednesse of life vnto secular Iudges vnder whose dominion they are not vnto the Church because saith he neither is such power giuen vnto vs by the lawes with authoritie to restraine men from offences nor if such power were giuen vs could we haue wherewith we might exercise such power c. So in his time and long after such power of compelling offenders by temporall punishments to conuert to better life was vnheard of to be in Bishops of the Church Cardinall Bellarmine in the catalogue of his ancient writers which he produceth against Barclai for the Popes temporall authoritie ouer Princes beginneth with one who was iudge in his owne cause Gregorie the seuenth that began his reigne in the yeare of our Lord 1073. not able of like to proue it out of any more ancient Father or generall Councell That this Pope was the first that challenged or attempted to practise such authoritie Otho in chro l. 6. c. 35. witnesseth Otho Frisengen a most learned and holy Bishop and highly commended by the Cardinall himselfe lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 13. Lego saith he relego Romanorum Regum Imperatorum gesta nusquam inuenio quenquam eorum ante hunc à Rom. Pontifice excommunicatum vel regno priuatum c. I reade and reade ouer againe the acts of the Kings and Emperors of Rome and in no place can I find any of them before this to wit Henrie the fourth to be excommunicated or depriued of his kingdome by the Bishop of Rome vnlesse haply any take this for excommunication that Philip the first Christian Emperor who succeeded Gordianus for a short space Euseb hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 25. was by the Bishop of Rome or as Eusebius reporteth of the Bishop of that place where he then resided placed among publicke penitents and Theodosius sequestred by S. Ambrose from entrance into the Church for cruell murther Whereby we may note that this learned man could not find no not one example in all precedent ages of depriuing kings of their regal scepters though of excommunication he proposeth onely these two which may haue some shew of truth for meere excommunication howbeit more probable it is they were not excommunicated at all maiore excommunicatione Then this Author in the next chapter following Otho ibid. c. â—6 describeth the intestine warres destruction of soules and bodies setting vp of Pope against Pope schismes and other manifold lamentable miseries that ensued vpon that fact of Pope Gregory against Henrie the 4 who commanded the Bishops of Ments and Colen to constitute Rodolph Duke of Burgundie Emperor Spec. hist l. 27. and to put downe Henrie whereupon followed a most grieuous warre wherein Rodolphus was ouercome who dying repentant said The Apostolicall commandement and the intreatie of Princes haue made me a trangressor of my oath behold therefore my hand cut off or wounded wherewith I sware to my Lord Henrie not trecherously to practise any thing against his life nor his glorie Who being ouercome the Bishop of Ments by the Popes commandement and with helpe of Saxons raised an other aduersary against the Emperor one Hermannus Knoflock whereupon followed likewise bloudie warres After this Henrie gathering his armie together driueth the Pope into France and setteth vp the Bishop of Rauenna against him whom he named Clement and so caused a schisme This sparsim out of the history Such like calamities are more then probable to fall on people and the Church when Emperors or Kings are so violently proceeded withall assured destruction of many and no hope of the correction of any by such means is like to ensue Was such power trow ye giuen by Christ to his Apostles tending to destruction not to edification No all to edification according to S. Paul 2. Cor. 10. none to destruction Otho Frisengensis in another place of his workes Li. 1. de gestis Frederici c. 1. writing of the Popes excommunicating the Emperour sheweth that Henrie 4. thought it to be such a nouitie as he had neuer knowne the like sentence to be denounced against any Romane Emperor before He liued an 1150. And Sigebert in Chronico 1088. affirmeth the doctrine of Priests By euill kings he meaneth such as are deposed Cont. Barcl cap. 5. teaching that no subiection is to be yeelded to euill Kings and though they sweare fidelitie are not bound to performe it to be noua haeresis a new heresie sprung vp Howbeit Cardinall Bellarmine will tell you that such doctrine and practise began about the yeare of our Lord 700 for before that time there wanted as he affirmeth either necessitie or oportunitie to teach or vse such power By reason of like there were no hereticall Princes impugners of the true faith before that time or that the paucitie of Christian Kings to assist the weake forces
taken without deniall of their faith neuer shewing them any particular point which it is for to say truth they cannot So then their bare word must be beleeued as an oracle or else in fine with a bat they will beate men downe The Popes commandement not hauing ought else to say which may conuince It may be admired they make no more conscience in such an important businesse as this is not hauing the Churches definition nor ancient Fathers approbations for their assertions After all some burst forth in most vncharitable railing slanderous backbitings against such priests as in conscience haue performed their dutie in taking it and persist in teaching the lawfulnesse thereof withdrawing friends and charitable almes from them counselling some and commanding others not to resort vnto them as I haue bene credibly told by some that haue themselues bene forbidden and much more such like dealings which shall not be here rehearsed Ignosce illis Deus quia nesciunt quid faciunt These ought not to be the proceedings neither of good subiects nor of discreete guides of mens soules or true disciples of Christ who are made knowne to all by a notorious cognisance commonly called loue or charity giuen by our Sauiour Christ In hoc cognoscent omnes quia discipuli mei estis Ioan. 13. si dilectioneÌ„ habueritis Adinuicem In this all men shal know that you are my disciples if you haue loue one to another Which badge were to be wished more visible then it is in some that pretend to be true followers of Christ Now to the authoritie of S. Paul may be answered that an hereticke so taken condemned and denounced by the Church is to be auoided in his heresie to be taken heed of that he be not seduced by him haeresis enim serpit vt cancer for heresie creepeth as a canker and in humane conuersation also when there is hope to reduce him thereby to a better mind Vt spiritus saluus sit But as no Catholike is by the lawes of this realme to be accompted a Recusant till he be conuicted so is none by the lawes of the Church to be reputed an hereticke to be auoided till he be by her admonished condemned and denounced for such which is neuer without pertinacie in heresie And what maketh this for them that say we denie the Popes authoritie God forbid that I by his grace a Catholicke priest should euer denie the Popes spirituall power to excommunicate any Prince or people that were once incorporated into the body mysticall of Christ by Baptisme but as I haue denied excommunication of her owne nature to extend to deposition and taking away of temporals so I may not grant that euery excommunicate person is to be abandoned of all and debarred of all humane society and conuersation Though humane communication esteemed one of the common goods is found also among the faithfull as to eate together to salute to talke negotiate and such like yet this sort of communication belongeth not to them properly as they are Christians and members of the Church but as they are citizens parts of the body politick And as they are such they are bound to adhere vnto the head of this body their Prince not to forsake but obey him in all iust ciuill causes notwithstanding any sentence of excommunicatioÌ„ as hath bene proued before out of Syluester Panormitan others which is not to deny the Popes power No if you reade Tortus and beleeue him I know you wil change your opinion for vpon those words That the Pope neither of himselfe nor by any authority of the Church or Sea of Rome hath any power or authority to depose the king c. or to discharge any of his subiects of their allegiance and obedience to his Maiestie c. He writeth thus Torâ—us par 3. Here it is manifestly seene that this Oath doth not containe onely ciuill obedience in things meerely temporall as the Authour of the Apologie our Soueraigne so oft hath repeated but it containeth also a denyall of the Popes power which is not a thing meerely temporall but a holy thing and giuen from aboue which no mortall man can take away or diminish It is strange that his Maiesties oft repetition of a truth nothing to be contained in the Oath or required but ciuil obedience seemeth irkesome to the Cardinal it being very necessary wheÌ„ men will not vnderstand but his Grace goeth not about to disproue it And who I pray you is a better interpreter of a law when doubts or difficulties arise then he that made the law If it containes a deniall of the Popes power his Grace should haue done well to haue proued it and shewed wherein Though the Cardinall for many respects ought of me somtime not vnknown vnto him highly to be reuerenced and his writings credited yet in this matter to me most cleare I must craue pardon if I differ from him in opinion and write otherwise not being able after study and diligent search of this matter to see it so manifest as his Grace wold make his reader beleeue It is most manifest the ancient Fathers neuer taught so viz. to be in the Popes power to depose Kings nor discharge subiects of their loyaltie and dutifull obedience the Church neuer yet defined it so can I then be so credulous to beleeue his bare word without better proofe His ipse dixit in this will not be sufficient The other florish to leade away a simple and inconsiderate reader forsooth that the Popes power is spirituall a holy thing from heauen c. is somewhat vainely and to no purpose inserted for no Catholicke denieth it and we that haue taken the Oath of allegiance are readie with Gods grace if need were to shed our bloud in defence therof and euerie point of Catholicke faith albeit we suffer disgraces and neuer receiued temporall benefite nor euer tooke oath vsque ad effusionem sanguinis inclusiuè so to do as the most illustrous and most reuerend purple Fathers are accustomed to take when in publicke consistory they receiue their hats The Cardinall in Tortus goeth on further to prooue by subsequent words in the Oath that the Popes spirituall power is denied Parag. 4. which were enough to terrifie Christian subiects if it were true The words are these Also I do sweare from my heart that notwithstanding any declaration or sentence of excommunication or depriuation made or granted or to be made or granted by the Pope or his successors or by any authoritie deriued or pretended to be deriued from him or his Sea against the said King his heires or successours or any absolution of the said subiects from their obedience I will beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie his heires and successors Here saith the Card. is openly denyed that the Pope hath power to excommunicate Kings though they be heretikes Note his proofe For how saith he can a Catholicke lawfully and iustly sweare that he will
disturbance of him or his people c. This they so vertuous and learned did with their Prince without resistance as knowing it to be their dutie so to do and his case to be farre different from that of our Soueraigne who was neuer excommunicated nor relapsed or indeede hereticke as I haue alreadie said and could more largely proue if need were yet they did not then nor euer will denie the Popes spirituall power to excommunicate And may not the King of great Brittaine require the like of his subiects both Clergie and people and they performe the same as well as the French without preiudicating the Apostolicall power When Monsignore Fontana Bishop of Ferrara knowing well the now Duke of Modina then vsurping the title and dominion of Ferrara to be excommunicated by name in most parts of Italie did notwithstanding of necessitie communicate with him as a subiect with his Prince and did refuse to publish it in his owne Church without the Dukes consent notwithstanding the Popes order and commandement vnto him Will any man say that this good Bishop denied the Popes spirituall power to excommunicate That were ridiculous or offended in disobedience No necessitie if nought else excused So enough of this matter There is another knot to be vntied which seemeth insoluble to wit that I do beleeue that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoeuer hath power to absolue me of this Oath or any part thereof c. And that I doe renounce all pardons dispensations to the contrary Is not this a plaine denying of the Popes spirituall authoritie Cardinall Bellarmine in Tortus plainly teacheth me Tortus §. 5. that he who a little before by swearing denieth the Popes power to bind the same doth now denie his power to loose For of those words of our Lord Quodcunque solueris super terram erit solutum in coelis all Catholicke men gather that power belongeth to the chiefe Bishop to absolue not onely from sins but also from punishments censures lawes vowes and oathes when it may be expedient to the glorie of God and health of soules This knot to him that vieweth it well will not be found to haue more difficultie to vnknit then the former of binding For as it is an vndoubted veritie that no Bishop no nor the Pope can by vertue of excommunication lesse by any temporall power out of his owne territories thrust any priuate Christian man out of his possessions who before had right thereto and bereaue him thereof as hath bene proued so it is as certaine that they can no more absolue a subiect of his dutie and naturall allegiance to his Prince and of his oath of fealtie made vnto him discharging him of all subiection and obedience then they can a wife of her dutie to her husband of childrens honoring their parents or seruants their maisters being warranted for the performance thereof by the law of God Honour thy father and thy mother c. against which no power in earth can dispence nor absolue them that is release them of such dutie At this word Absolue some silly soules yea and others that would be accounted wise are as it were scandalized beleeuing that taking the Oath they shall denie the Popes spirituall power of absoluing a sinner of his sinnes in foro conscientiae which euery Priest hauing iurisdiction may do little considering that they are not like to confesse their sinnes to him this yeare or euer in their life and out of confession his authoritie stretcheth not to remit or absolue one from deadly sinne These in a sort resemble some good creatures that I haue noted in Italie when they heare the Preacher in his sermon vtter this word Confiteor will by and by knocke their breasts thinking he is talking of confession when as the word signifieth sometime to giue thankes And like people of small vnderstanding beleeue that by renouncing all pardons and dispensations to the contrary they must denie the Popes power of granting indulgences or pardons as the practise is to beades graines crosses c. and of dispensing in any case whatsoeuer it being spirituall as cannot be denied Here I stand ambiguous Prou. 26. whether I should follow Salomons counsell or no Responde stulto iuxta stultitiam suam ne sibi sapiens esse videatur Answer a foole according to his folly lest he thinke himselfe wise It shall not be haply amisse for their more satisfaction to condescend somewhat vnto such letting them to vnderstand that to men of any iudgement it must needs be ridiculous who know it cannot nor ought so to be vnderstood but onely of pardoning and dispencing or releasing subiects of a lawfull Oath of fealtie and dutifull obedience to their Soueraigne This is not spirituall power which belongeth to the Church and therefore when such pardons and dispensations shall be offered by his Holines as is neuer like to be euery good subiect is bound to renounce them as being contrary to the ordinance of almightie God I aske these what they thinke whether the Pope or any power in earth can command absolue in this sence as we take it or dispence against the law of God and nature They must needs say as truth is he cannot and according to S. Thomas doctrine In his quaesunt de lege naturae 2.2 q. 88. ar 10. in praeceptis diuinis non potest per hominem dispensari In such things as are of the law of nature and in diuine precepts it cannot be dispensed withall by man Then I inferre and it is Barclaies argument not solued by Cardinall Bellarmine But subiection and obedience due to Princes and superiors is de iure naturali diuino this cannot be denied being euident in Scriptures Therefore neither the Pope nor any power in earth can command any thing absolue or dispense against it and consequently cannot command subiects not to performe obedience to their Prince or superior in that wherein he is superior if he should it is lawfull for them not to obey him not to accept of such a dispensation We grant with the Cardinall that it appertaineth to the Popes spirituall power to absoblue from sins also from paines and censures lawes vowes and oathes verumt amen non quidquid libet licet it is not meant in all lawes all vowes nor all oathes No man I thinke will say that he can absolue from the iust ciuill lawes of secular Princes for that were in alienam messem falcem mittere and to be a monarchicall superior in temporals which is not to be admitted but onely in his owne lawes and the Canons Decrees or positiue lawes of the Church wherein I confesse he hath plenitudinem potestatis as likewise Princes haue in the commonwealth and thereby may dispense in their owne lawes as S. Thomas teacheth 2.2 q. 6.7 ar 4. Princeps habet plenariam potestatem in republica 1.2 q. 96. a. 5. ad 3. Who according to the same in another place is said to be